New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has long avoided wading too deep into the supercharged subject of immigration. But on Thursday, he took a clear position on a piece of the hot-button issue: he’s expected to approve a New Jersey DREAM Act.

The move injects Christie into the explosive immigration debate ahead of his all-but-certain 2016 presidential bid. And Republican observers plugged in to early presidential states say that while the party has sought to moderate on the issue since the last election, Christie would have some explaining to do to skeptical caucus and primary voters.

“What he’s going to have to do, like any candidate, is he’s going to have to back up what he did,” said influential Iowa social conservative Bob Vander Plaats of Christie. “If it’s signing in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, Iowans are pretty fair and reasonable. On the one hand, they don’t like to be subsidizing illegal immigrants in the form of in-state tuition. And on the other hand, they really don’t like to punish kids for illegal immigration that was caused by their parents.”

In the past, Christie has avoided staking out a stance on the broader immigration reform debate by saying, as a former U.S attorney, he knows the issue is complex. He once told POLITICO he didn’t want to “demagogue” the subject.

At issue now is a measure that would allow college-seeking undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition if they meet certain requirements, such as graduating from high school in New Jersey. The effort is something Christie said he would support during his fall reelection bid, which was then held up in part over a Democratic push for state-provided aid to those students.

Democrats have agreed to let go of that language, and Christie is now expected to support the bill.

“The most important thing is for these young men and women of our state, who we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in in their K-12 education, we’re now going to give them an opportunity in an affordable way to be able to continue their education,” Christie said Thursday. “And if they do, that’s going to be to the benefit, first and foremost, of themselves. Secondly, to their families. And third, to the [families] of New Jersey, who will benefit from a more educated workforce to meet the challenges of the global economy.”

Doing so would put him among the ranks of other potential 2016 hopefuls, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) who have supported bipartisan solutions to the immigration issue.

“This is what compromise looks like,” Christie said. “Sometimes it’s quiet, sometimes it’s loud but you can do both at the same time. You can have public arguments about a particular piece of legislation or a policy position and at the same time be having quiet, private conversations where you say how are we going to bring people together to get this done.”

The measure under Christie’s consideration is far from a progressive’s dream. Some immigration activists have already expressed dismay and the liberal super PAC American Bridge 21st Century was quick to hit the governor, who had earlier threatened to veto the measure if the state-provided aid language wasn’t removed. And in New Jersey, he was accused by some of flip-flopping on the issue.

Christie insiders have argued that a single policy moment involving immigration doesn’t change the extensive work he’s done over several years developing a relationship with Hispanic voters. What’s more, his backers are mindful that he is not known as a voice of immigration reform, and they hope that absolves him of some of the criticism he could face.

Some early-state strategists say that Christie’s best defense is being himself, preserving a brand that has evolved nationally since his 2009 election.

“On immigration — and really every issue — you can’t parse your way to success or safety. Christie needs to be Christie,” said Iowa strategist David Kochel, who led Mitt Romney’s operation in the state in 2012. “He’s not given to nuance, it goes against who he is. Voters will reward authenticity, no matter what the issue. And there is plenty of room on the issue of immigration. Voters want to hear that the border will be secured and our broken system will be fixed.”

DREAM Act politics came to the fore during the last presidential primary season when Perry drew fire for his aggressive defense of a Texas version of the measure. Perry, who was pummeled by his GOP rivals during a debate over his backing of the policy, shot back that those who would punish the children of illegal immigrants didn’t “have a heart,” sparking outrage from conservative activists and some of his opponents.

At the time, Christie jabbed, “From my perspective, that is not a heartless position. That is a common-sense position.”

Ray Sullivan, who served as Perry’s presidential campaign spokesman, said more explanation of the program would have gone a long way. Sullivan added that Republicans are more open to a moderate approach to immigration after getting walloped in 2012 and losing a significant portion of the Hispanic community.

But it’s still a polarizing subject, he added.

“These issues that touch on immigration and ethnicity remain fraught with peril in the political arena,” Sullivan said. “It’s bold, it’s risky and it really requires a deft communicator and deft political hand to successfully explain the measure and the purpose and the goals to the public, particularly Republican primary voters.”

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by about 44 percentage points, touching off months of Republican soul searching about how to make inroads with that demographic. The Republican National Committee’s “autopsy” report assessing what went wrong in 2012 endorsed immigration reform and stressed the need for a more inclusive tone.

Tim Albrecht, a Republican strategist from the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa, who until recently was a spokesman for Gov. Terry Branstad, said that message has been internalized in the Hawkeye State.

“Republicans understand we got our tail kicked in part because we haven’t done a good job reaching out to Hispanics and other groups,” he said. “The 2012 election has changed attitudes and tone, and I think the candidates are going to do a better job of reaching out to those constituencies. I don’t think we’re going to see harsh rhetoric from candidates or caucus-goers.”

But what plays in Trenton doesn’t necessarily play in Dubuque. RNC Committeeman Steve Scheffler, from Iowa, said that any moderation on immigration could be toxic for a Republican presidential hopeful.

“Why should any undocumented alien be able to get any kind of financial assistance, educational assistance?” he said of in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants. “[For] any candidate that runs in 2016 in the caucuses here in Iowa, that would be a political death warrant…that’s not going to go anywhere in Iowa on the Republican side.”

As for comprehensive immigration reform — which was initially championed in the Senate by Rubio, who has since advocated other options — that’s “political suicide,” Scheffler added.

Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a leader of the religious right who is also supportive of immigration reform, countered that immigration isn’t a litmus test with the base.

“I think if you can articulate and defend it, I think you can make the case,” he said. “Reasonable people of good will are going to disagree on that; clearly there are going to be governors like Christie and like Perry who’ve taken the position they’ve taken that…is best for their state. Other governors…are going to disagree. But I don’t know that it’s a deal-killer either way.”

What will be key, he continued, is having a “well-thought out and granular position on immigration reform.”